Universal Rubric for Lab Reports
developed by
Briana Timmerman
University of South Carolina
Department Biological Sciences
For more information, please contact:
Briana Timmerman
timmerman@schc.sc.edu
The rubric was developed as a means of measuring how well students are achieving the stated curriculum goals of the USC Biology
Curriculum (http://www.biol.sc.edu/undergrad/curriculum.html). The rubric was created and refined in consultation with a wide
variety of faculty, instructors and educational specialists, both within and outside the department (see acknowledgements page). The
criteria were selected as the minimum framework one would expect to see in any good biology lab report or other scientific
communication. The levels of student performance are intended as a roadmap of the probable learning trajectory of a typical
undergraduate student. The “Proficient” level describes the performance we would hope an exceptional undergraduate or beginning
graduate student would achieve. Instructors are encouraged to select and use only the criteria and levels of student performance that
they feel are relevant to their student population and assignment goals. A scoring guide (rubric plus examples of student work at each
level of performance) has also been developed and is available upon request. Feedback or comments would be most appreciated if sent
to Briana Timmerman at the contact information listed above. The Rubric underwent formal reliability testing (Timmerman et al.
2007) producing a three rater reliability score of g = 0.85 using biology graduate students as raters and generalizability analysis.
Further details are also available from Briana Timmerman.
Please cite as:
Timmerman, B.E., Johnson, R.L. and Payne, J. 2007. Development of a universal rubric for assessing students' science inquiry skills.
National Association of Research in Science Teaching 2007 Annual Meeting New Orleans LA, April 15-18th
Support for this project was provided by NSF Award 0410992 to Timmerman.
p.
Criteria
Introduction: Context
Demonstrates a clear
understanding of the big
picture;
Why is this question
important/ interesting in
the field of biology?
Not addressed
•
•
The importance of
the question is not
addressed.
How the question
relates within the
broader context of
biology is not
addressed.
Introduction: Accuracy and relevance
Content knowledge is
• Background
accurate, relevant and
information is
provides appropriate
missing or contains
background for reader
major inaccuracies.
including defining
• Background
critical terms.
information is
accurate, but
irrelevant or too
disjointed to make
relevance clear
• Primary literature
references are absent
or irrelevant. May
contain website or
secondary references
websites or review
papers are not primary
Novice
•
•
•
•
•
The writer provides a
generic or vague
rationale for the
importance of the
question.
The writer provides
vague or generic
references to the
broader context of
biology.
Background omits
information or
contains
inaccuracies which
detract from the
major point of the
paper.
Background
information is
overly narrow or
overly general (only
partially relevant).
Primary literature
references, if
present, are
inadequately
explained.
Intermediate
Proficient
The writer provides
one explanation of
why others would
find the topic
interesting.
The writer provides
some relevant
context for the
research question(s).
•
• Background
information may
contain minor
omissions or
inaccuracies that do
not detract from the
major point of the
paper.
• Background
information has the
appropriate level of
specificity to provide
relevant context.
• Primary literature
references are relevant
and adequately
explained but few.
•
•
•
1
•
•
•
The writer provides
a clear sense of why
this knowledge may
be of interest to a
broad audience
The writer describes
the current gaps in
our understanding of
this field and
explains how this
research will help fill
those gaps
Background
information is
completely accurate
Background
information has the
appropriate level of
specificity to provide
concise and useful
context to aid the
reader’s
understanding.
Primary literature
references are
relevant, adequately
explained, and
indicate a reasonable
literature search.
p.
Criteria
Not addressed
Hypotheses: Testable and consider alternatives
Hypotheses are clearly
• No hypothesis is
stated, testable and
indicated.
consider plausible
• The hypothesis is
alternative explanations
stated but too vague
or confused for its
value to be
determined
• A clearly stated, but
not testable
hypothesis is
provided.
• A clearly stated and
testable, but trivial
hypothesis is
provided.
Hypotheses: Scientific merit
Hypotheses have
• Hypotheses are
scientific merit.
trivial, obvious,
incorrect or
completely off topic.
Novice
•
•
•
Intermediate
A single relevant,
testable hypothesis is
clearly stated
The hypothesis may
be compared with a
“null” alternative
which is usually just
the absence of the
expected result.
•
Hypotheses are
plausible and
appropriate though
likely or clearly
taken directly from
course material.
•
•
2
Proficient
Multiple relevant,
•
testable hypotheses
are clearly stated.
Hypotheses address
more than one major
potential mechanism,
explanation or
factors for the topic.
A comprehensive
suite of testable
hypotheses are
clearly stated which,
when tested, will
distinguish among
multiple major
factors or potential
explanations for the
phenomena at hand.
Hypotheses indicate
a level of
understanding
beyond the material
directly provided to
the student in the lab
manual or
coursework.
Hypotheses are
novel, insightful, or
actually have the
potential to
contribute useful
new knowledge to
the field.
•
p.
Criteria
Not addressed
Methods: Controls and replication
Appropriate controls
• Controls and/ors
(including appropriate
replication are
replication) are present
nonexistent,
and explained.
• Controls and/or
replication may have
If the student designed
been present, but just
the experiment:
not described or
• Controls and/or
replication were
described but were
inappropriate.
If the instructor designed
the experiment:
•
Student fails to
mention controls
and/or replication or
mentions them, but
the description or
explanation is
incomprehensible.
Methods: Experimental design
Experimental design is
• inappropriate
likely to produce salient • poorly explained /
and fruitful results (tests
indecipherable
the hypotheses posed.)
Methods are:
Novice
•
•
Controls consider
one major relevant
factor
Replication is
modest (weak
statistical power).
Intermediate
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Student explanations
of controls and/or
replication are
vague, inaccurate or
indicate only a
rudimentary sense of
the need for controls
and or replication
•
appropriate
clearly explained
drawn directly from
coursework
not modified where
appropriate
•
•
•
•
•
3
Proficient
Controls take most
relevant factors into
account
Controls include
positive and negative
controls if
appropriate
Replication is
appropriate (average
sample size with
reasonable statistical
power).
•
Student evidences a
reasonable sense of
why controls/
replication matter to
this experiment
Explanations are
mostly accurate.
•
Explanations of why
these controls matter
to this experiment
are thorough, clear
and tied into sections
on assumptions and
limitations
appropriate
clearly explained
modified from
coursework in
appropriate places
or drawn directly
from a novel source
(outside the course)
•
•
•
appropriate
clearly explained
a synthesis of
multiple previous
approaches or an
entirely new
approach
•
•
Controls consider all
relevant factors
Controls have
become methods of
differentiating
between multiple
hypotheses.
Replication is robust
(sample size is larger
than average for the
type of study).
p.
Criteria
Results: Data selection
Data are comprehensive,
accurate and relevant.
Not addressed
•
Data are too
incomplete or
haphazard to provide
a reasonable basis
for testing the
hypothesis
Novice
•
•
Results: Data presentation
Data are summarized in •
a logical format. Table
or graph types are
appropriate. Data are
properly labeled
including units. Graph
axes are appropriately
labeled and scaled and
•
captions are informative
and complete.
•
Presentation of data:
Labels or units are
missing which
prevent the reader
from being able to
derive any useful
information from the
graph.
Presentation of data
is in an inappropriate
format or graph type
Captions are
confusing or
indecipherable.
•
•
Intermediate
Proficient
At least one relevant •
dataset per
hypothesis is
provided but some
necessary data are
•
missing or inaccurate
Reader can
satisfactorily
evaluate some but
not all of writer’s
conclusions.
Data are relevant,
accurate and
complete with any
gaps being minor.
Reader can fully
evaluate whether the
hypotheses were
supported or rejected
with the data
provided.
•
contains some errors
in or omissions of
labels, scales, units
etc., but the reader is
able to derive some
relevant meaning
from each figure.
is technically correct
but inappropriate
format prevents the
reader from deriving
meaning or using it.
Captions are missing
or inadequate
contains only minor
mistakes that do not
interfere with the
reader’s
understanding and
the figure’s meaning
is clear without the
reader referring to
the text.
Graph types or table
formats are
appropriate for data
type.
includes captions
that are at least
somewhat useful.
•
•
•
•
•
4
•
•
•
•
Data are relevant,
accurate and
comprehensive.
Reader can fully
evaluate validity of
writer’s conclusions
and assumptions.
Data may be
synthesized or
manipulated in a
novel way to provide
additional insight.
contains no mistakes
uses a format or
graph type which
highlights
relationships
between the data
points or other
relevant aspects of
the data.
may be elegant,
novel, or otherwise
allow unusual insight
into data
has informative,
concise and complete
captions.
p.
Criteria
Results: Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis is
•
appropriate for
hypotheses tested and
appears correctly
•
performed and
interpreted with relevant
values reported and
explained.
Not addressed
No statistical
analysis is
performed.
Statistics are
provided but are
inappropriate,
inaccurate or
incorrectly
performed or
interpreted so as to
provide no value to
the reader.
Novice
• Appropriate, accurate •
descriptive statistics
only are provided.
• Inferential statistics
are provided but
either incorrectly
performed or
interpreted or an
•
inappropriate test was
used.
• Appropriate, correct
inferential statistics
are provided, but lack
sufficient explanation.
Discussion: Conclusions based on data selected
Conclusion is clearly
• Conclusions have
•
and logically drawn
little or no basis in
from data provided. A
data provided.
logical chain of
• Connections between
reasoning from
hypothesis, data and
hypothesis to data to
conclusion are nonconclusions is clearly
existent, limited,
•
and persuasively
vague or otherwise
explained. Conflicting
insufficient to allow
data, if present, are
reasonable
adequately addressed.
evaluation of their
•
merit.
• Conflicting data are
not addressed.
Conclusions have
•
some direct basis in
the data, but may
contain some gaps in
logic or data or are
overly broad.
Connections between •
hypothesis, data and
conclusions are
present but weak.
Conflicting or
missing data are
•
poorly addressed.
Intermediate
5
Proficient
Appropriate
•
inferential
(comparative)
statistical analysis is •
properly performed
and reasonably well
explained.
Explanation of
significant value may
be limited or rote
(e.g. use of p<0.05
only)
Statistical analysis is
appropriate, correct
and clearly explained
includes a
description of what
constitutes a
significant value and
why that value was
chosen as the
threshold (may
choose values
beyond p<0.05).
Conclusions are
clearly and logically
drawn from and
bounded by the data
provided with no
gaps in logic.
A reasonable and
clear chain of logic
from hypothesis to
data to conclusions is
made.
Conclusions attempt
to discuss or explain
conflicting or
missing data.
Conclusions are
completely justified
by data.
Connections between
hypothesis, data, and
conclusions are
comprehensive and
persuasive.
Conclusions address
and logically refute
or explain conflicting
data
Synthesis of data in
conclusion may
generate new
insights.
•
•
•
•
p.
Criteria
Not addressed
Discussion: Alternative explanations
Alternative explanations • are not provided
are considered and
• are trivial or
clearly eliminated by
irrelevant
data in a persuasive
• are mentioned but
discussion.
not discussed or
eliminated.
Alternative explanations:
Discussion: Limitations of design
Limitations of the data
• are not discussed.
and/or experimental
design and
corresponding
implications discussed.
Limitations:
Discussion: Significance of research
Paper gives a clear
• are not addressed.
indication of the
significance of the
research and its future
directions.
Future directions and
significance of this
research:
Novice
•
•
•
•
•
Intermediate
6
Proficient
are provided in the
discussion only
may include some
trivial or irrelevant
alternatives.
Discussion
addresses some but
not all of the
alternatives in a
reasonable way.
• Some alternative
• have become a suite
explanations are tested
of interrelated
as hypotheses; those not
hypotheses that are
tested are reasonably
explicitly tested with
evaluated in the
data.
discussion.
• Discussion and
• Discussion of
analysis of
alternatives is
alternatives is based
reasonably complete,
on data, complete and
uses data where
persuasive with a
possible and results in
single clearly
at least some
supported explanation
alternatives being
remaining by the end
persuasively dismissed.
of the discussion.
are discussed in a
trivial way (e.g.
“human error” is
the major limitation
invoked).
• are relevant, but not
addressed in a
comprehensive way
• Conclusions fail to
address or overstep the
bounds indicated by the
limitations.
•
•
are vague,
• are useful, but indicate
•
implausible (not
incomplete knowledge of
possible with
the field (suggest
•
current technologies
research that has already
or methodologies),
been done or is
trivial or off topic.
improbable with current
methodologies)
• suggest a fruitful line of
research, but lack detail
to indicate motivations
for or implications of the
future research.
are presented as
factors modifying the
author’s conclusions.
Conclusions take
these limitations into
account.
are salient, plausible
and insightful
suggest work that
would fill
knowledge gaps and
move the field
forward.
p.
Criteria
Use of Primary Literature
Relevant and reasonably •
complete discussion of
how this research project
relates to others’ work in
the field (scientific
context provided).
Primary literature is
defined as:
- peer reviewed
- reports original data
- authors are the people
who collected the data.
- published by a noncommercial publisher.
Not addressed
Primary literature
references are not
included.
Novice
•
•
•
Primary literature
references are
limited (only one or
two primary
references in the
whole paper)
References to the
textbook, lab
manual, or websites
may occur.
Citations are at least
partially correctly
formatted.
Intermediate
•
•
•
Note that proper format
includes a one-to-one
correspondence between •
in-text and end of text
references (no references
at end that are not in text
and vice versa) as well
as any citation style
currently in use by a
relevant biology journal.
Primary literature
references are more
extensive (at least
one citation for each
major concept)
Literature cited is
predominantly (>
90%) primary
literatures.
Primary literature
references are used
primarily to provide
background
information and
context for
conclusions
Primary literature
references
7
Proficient
•
•
•
•
Primary literature
references indicate
an extensive
literature search was
performed.
Primary literature
references frame the
question in the
introduction by
indicating the gaps in
current knowledge of
the field.
Primary literature
references are used
in the discussion to
make the
connections between
the writer’s work and
other research in the
field clear
Primary literature
references are
properly and
accurately cited
p.
Criteria
Writing quality
Grammar, word usage
and organization
facilitate the reader’s
understanding of the
paper.
(some elements inspired
by the SC State Dept.
Education ExtendedResponse Scoring Guide
for English Language
Arts.)
Not addressed
•
•
•
•
Grammar and
spelling errors
detract from the
meaning of the
paper.
Word usage is
frequently confused
or incorrect.
Subheadings are not
used or poorly used.
Information is
presented in a
haphazard way.
Novice
•
•
•
•
Grammar and
spelling mistakes do
not hinder the
meaning of the
paper.
General word usage
is appropriate,
although use of
technical language is
may have occasional
mistakes.
Subheadings are
used and aid the
reader somewhat.
There is some
evidence of an
organizational
strategy though it
may have gaps or
repetitions.
Intermediate
•
•
•
•
Grammar and
spelling have few
mistakes.
Word usage is
accurate and aids the
reader’s
understanding.
Distinct sections of
the paper are
delineated by
informative
subheadings.
A clear
organizational
strategy is present
with a logical
progression of ideas.
8
Proficient
•
•
•
•
Correct grammar and
spelling.
Word usage
facilitates reader’s
understanding.
Informative
subheadings
significantly aid
reader’s
understanding.
A clear
organizational
strategy is present
with a logical
progression of ideas.
There is evidence of
an active planning
for presenting
information; this
paper is easier to
read than most.
p.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to the following people for their time and efforts in developing and/or providing feedback on the rubric in its various
stages of development:
USC Department of Biological Sciences Faculty:
USC Biology Graduate Students/Instructors:
Renae Brodie
Susan Carstensen
Erin Connelly
Brian Helmuth
Laurel Hester
Robert Lawther
David Lincoln
Timothy Mousseau
Richard Showman, Curriculum Committee Chair
Dick Vogt
Sally Woodin, Department Chair
Kyle Aveni-Deforge
Sarah Berke
Pamela Brannock
Andre Brock
Lisa Cox
Rebecca Cozart
Debra Davis
Kenny Fernandez
Sierra Jones
Jennifer Jost
Dino Marshalonis
Kenneth Oswald
Suzanne Pickard
Cliff Ramsdell
Sarah Refi
Denise Strickland
Lauren Szathmary
Michelle Vieyra
University of South Carolina:
Claudia Benitez-Nelson, USC Marine Science Program
Robert Johnson, USC College of Education, Department of Educational Psychology, Research, and Foundations
Loren Knapp, Assistant Dean, USC College of Arts and Sciences
Jonathan Singer, USC College of Education, Instruction and Teacher Education
Outside USC
Barbara Buckley, Concord Consortium
David Treagust, Curtin University, Australia
9